Q: You are so wrong about the Government Pension Offset issue! In a recent column, you said it is fair. Well, it might seem fair to a former highly paid government executive such as you? But to a low-paid government retiree like me, it is totally unfair. How would you like it if your mother or sister was poor and was denied benefits on her husband's Social Security record because of some stupid government offset?

A: Gosh, my wife will be thrilled to hear that she is married to a "former highly paid government executive." Maybe now she'll be able to buy filet mignon at the grocery store instead of the ground chuck she's been bringing home for my supper!

And I'm glad you brought up my sister. I think she will help me explain a complicated issue I've been trying for years to get people to understand.

This letter writer refers to the "Government Pension Offset", or GPO. This is a rule that essentially says that if you get a government retirement pension, that pension will offset any dependent's benefits you might be due on your spouse's Social Security record. Government employees have always hated this rule because they think they have been singled out for an unjust reduction in potential Social Security benefits.

But I have always pointed out that the GPO is fair because it merely treats government employees in the same way as all other workers in this country have been treated. That's because there has always been a general Social Security retirement benefit offset. In other words, if you get a Social Security retirement benefit, that benefit offsets, dollar for dollar, any spousal benefits you might be due on your husband or wife's Social Security record.

And as I said, maybe my sister's situation will help you understand my point.

Like you, my sister always worked at low-paid jobs. The only difference is that she worked in the private sector and paid into Social Security. And now she is living on a low Social Security retirement pension.

You, on the other hand, worked at a low paid government job — a job where you did not pay into Social Security. So now you get a low government retirement pension.

My sister cannot get any of her husband's Social Security because her own Social Security retirement benefit offsets any dependent wife's benefits she might be due. This is because of the general Social Security retirement benefit offset I mentioned earlier.

However, before the government pension offset law went into place, you, as a government retiree, would have been able to receive your own government retirement pension AND a Social Security dependent's wife's benefit on your husband's Social Security record.

Please tell me how it is fair that a government retiree like you should be able to receive a retirement pension AND a Social Security dependent's benefit while a non-government retiree like my sister cannot?

I could understand your position about eliminating the government pension offset if you also favored elimination of the regular Social Security retirement pension offset. In other words, if you should be allowed to get some of your husband's Social Security, then should my sister be allowed to get some her husband's Social Security, too?

And then if you support the elimination of both offsets, where do you draw the line? Should a "former highly paid government executive" like me get part of his wife's Social Security? And should Bill Gates be allowed to get part of his wife's Social Security?

And by the way, no matter where you draw the line, how do you propose to pay for the extra billions of dollars in Social Security benefits that would be due if the offset laws were eliminated?

To find out more about Tom Margenau and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.